A down under slide show on the folly of the carbon tax

A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form. Here’s the entire slide show online from Philip R. Wood in Australia given July 14th.

Here’s the slide show link – it may take a bit to load on your PC as it is large.

While there are some good points in the presentation, there are a couple of slides that are questionable due to them not showing the most current data, such as the UAH satellite plot taken from my blog in April. The most recent one is here:

80 thoughts on “A down under slide show on the folly of the carbon tax”

Well, the ACS hasn’t gotten the message that climate change isn’t happening either. Susan Soloman is featured prominently in the agenda for the August meeting in Denver.Climate Change at the Fall 2011 ACS National Meeting

Climate change – a complex phenomenon involving physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting the atmosphere, land and fresh water surfaces, and the oceans – is encompassed by the Denver thematic program of Chemistry of Air, Space, and Water. The Kavli Lecture (Monday) by Dr. Susan Solomon on the “Enduring Challenges of Ozone Depletion and Climate Change” will review the key scientific questions and critical research areas regarding the phenomena involved in ozone depletion. Allen Townsend will examine the role of nitrogen in climate dynamics during his Plenary Lecture, “Nitrogen and the Human Endeavor” (Sunday), which also serves as a keynote for the full-length symposium, Nitrogen and the Human Endeavor: Chemistry, Effects, and Solutions (Monday).
Related symposia covering climate change in Denver:
• Atmospheric Aerosols: Chemistry, Clouds, and Climate (Tuesday – Thursday, ENVR)
• Breakfast and Conversation with Climate Experts (Sunday, SCHB)
• A Critical Look at Global Warming Data: An Examination of Driving Factors in the Wickedly Complex System Called Climate (Sunday, SCHB)
• Global Climate Change (Sunday, ENVR)
• A Sustainable Future: Interface of Energy, Food, Water, and Climate Sustainability (Tuesday, COMSCI)
• Air-Surface Interactions: Chemistry from Molecular to Global Climate Scales (Sunday & Monday, ENVR)
• Interactions between Ionizable Organic Chemicals and Organic Matter (Wednesday, ENVR)
• Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Mitigating Impacts (Thursday, ENVR)
Learn more about these and all sessions in the technical program

Gillard like the other wise Australian, Murdoch, knows that there is much mileage in pandering to stupidity. Associating carbon reduction with ‘organic’ food is truly inspired. I would also anticipate Page 3 endorsements, and perhaps collectible CO2 abatement tokens given away with McDonald’s happy meals, and breakfast cereals.

If power is legitimately delegated by the people to governments, is this not the time for the people to reconsider the legal concept of sovereign immunity and hold politicians personally accountable for acts of national and economic suicide. If a politican were to have to legally defend their actions in court when they intentionally or neglegently destroy lives and industry based on faulty science they might take an entirly different approach to the issues at hand.

I keep coming across numbers like this (that only 3% of CO2 production is down to humans) but surely that doesn’t add up. If we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390ppm in 130 years, and this is due to human activity, then surely we must be contributing more than 3%. Or is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?

holy carp!! That many people really believe that Tsunamis and earthquakes are caused by “carbon pollution”?? Didn’t any of them have a science class in school? I’m appalled!!!
================================================================

Obviously, public education isn’t what it is suppose to be. Or, perhaps, it is doing exactly what it was intended………..

Crito says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:31 pm
//////////////////////
Agreed. Holding politicians and civil servants to account for their actions is long overdue. It would make them think twice about the merits of any action that they seek to pursue.

We are currently being bombarded with millions of dollars worth of Gillard greenhouse propaganda on radio and TV. Funny how people now see “greenhouse” as a dirty word yet farmers still use greehouses, together with CO2 enrichment, to improve plant growth.

Even before the introduction of the carbon (dioxide) tax, electricity prices are going through the roof. I have recently received the new rates in SA from AGL, effective 29th July 2011, and the figures for just this year are frightening.

Since 9th Feb 2011 the rate changes include (ex-GST in c/KWh):
Summer peak
1st 1,200KWh/annum – 17.93 to 25.3 – up 41.1%
next 2,800KWh/annum – 20.15 to 27.97 – up 38.8%
next 6,000KWh/annum – 23.32 to 30.76 – up 31.9%
all additional KWh/annum – 23.68 to 31.34 – up 32.4%
AVERAGE RISE 36%

I keep coming across numbers like this (that only 3% of CO2 production is down to humans) but surely that doesn’t add up. If we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390ppm in 130 years, and this is due to human activity, then surely we must be contributing more than 3%. Or is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?
================================================================

Derek, the 3% is probably accurate as best as can be determined. However, the argument is the 3% accumulates. That stated, just because we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390 ppm doesn’t mean we(humans) are the source. In spite of what people would have you believe, the 280 ppm is not a constant, not now, nor was it ever. During the earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 has dramatically changed both much higher, and somewhat lower. BTW, if atmospheric CO2 drops much lower than 280ppm our plants are in trouble, and thus, so are we. As to various contributions to the GH effect, and an explanation of our contribution, here’s a good page….. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Derek, the sources and sinks of CO2 are too many to know all of the ins and outs to determine if we’re contributing or if the rise is an out-gassing.

The fact is, humans are also carbon sinks. And, we create carbon sinks. So, if we’re going to hold humans responsible for the CO2 out there, we need to factor in all of the possible ways, we are sinks, also. :-) No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.

I order online food from Tesco. They now have an extra line of enviro-spam in certain product descriptions that informs me how much of a carbonfootprint this food produces. It’s only on a few items, such a oats, potatoes and milk, the entire thing is quite bizarre and utterly pointless, no-one can do anything at all with this information, it’s sort of fluent arglegargleblopf.

Prior to PM Gillard being elected she was adamant there would be NO carbon tax, but no sooner was she in power she decides to have a change of heart and introduce this carbon tax.
What people should be asking is, what was it that made her have a complete about turn; did she see the ‘science’ and think WOW, we are in the sh*t!! As an intelligent woman, she must have questioned what she was told initially and i assume must have read and understood what was presented to her, so if it convinced her so strongly, then surely she should present the people with the same evidence she saw, which completely changed her attitude to the implimentation of the carbon tax, so in turn convince the public that she now governs.
If it provided her the need to do a very sudden and abrubt U turn, then i think the people need to see what it was that brought that decision into being.
It would be the right and proper thing to do in a open, decent and transparent democracy.

So ALL you Australians down there demand to see the evidence she saw which convinced her to take in this wonderful new carbon tax… Ask, ASK… ASK..!!!

To Fit Nick; the reason for Gillard’s change is simple – it’s called ‘The Greens’. They hold the balance of power in Australia, and Gillard has to dance to their tune if she is to stay in power as Prime Minister. They are determined that they know what is best for us, and will go all the way with eco-fascism to get what they want.

Derek, the 3% is correct. According to the IPCC, natural CO2 production is about 210.2 billion metric tons while man produces a measly 7.2 billion metric tons (3.4% of natural, 3.3 % of total). The AGW proponents claim that the natural CO2 production is perfectly in balance with carbon sinks even though natural sources can vary by several percent from year to year (volcanic eruptions being just one example).

I find a lot of emotions in the presentation. For instance asking for more CO2 emissions is just an emotional attack, not really backed up by science. The same applies to the ‘Cruelia’ joke or the projected China emissions. Sorry, nobody knows the future, neither in climate nor in industry.

I find the whole debate about whether CO2 is or isn’t pollutant funny. Sure enough, if production of something is too high and it upsets you, you call it a pollutant whatever it is. We have ozone pollution in cities however useful that gas is in the ionosphere, for instance. Battle of the “pollutant” sticker is yet again emotional one, not scientific one.

The argument ‘they never explain how or why’ is also completely wrong. I’ve heard way too many such explanations or predictions to agree that they never explain. I wish they didn’t, it wouldn’t be so much work to debunk all that nonsense … but the argument is wrong.

“Is global warming reducing ice caps … NO!” Well, arctic ice cap clearly is declining. And you can’t save it by statement that Al Gore was wrong about it – it may not be gone but it still is declining and the variability after 2007 is clearly under statistical significance and does not suggest it’s recovering.

I think there are lots of good points in that presentations but some are IMO just wrong or can be classified as hits under belt.

Derek Sorensen says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:32 pmOr is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?
and
James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pmDerek, the 3% is probably accurate as best as can be determined. However, the argument is the 3% accumulates. That stated, just because we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390 ppm doesn’t mean we(humans) are the source. In spite of what people would have you believe, the 280 ppm is not a constant, not now, nor was it ever.

James and Derek, the next slide (about the carbon cycle) shows reality: some 7 GtC is emitted by humans but only 4 GtC is removed by oceans and vegetation, that is the difference between natural sources and natural sinks. Thus it is highly misleading to say that human production is only 3% of natural production, because there are only few human sinks (by reforestation), while the natural sinks are higher than the natural production, if counted over a full seasonal cycle. Thus the net natural production is negative (at least over the past 60 years of accurate measurements).
There is little doubt that humans are responsible for almost all of the recent increase of CO2. Temperature only had a small contribution.
Historical CO2 levels from ice cores are quite clear on this: over the past near million years (and probably beyond), the influence of temperature was about 8 ppmv/°C, with CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppmv. Nowadays we are over 390 ppmv…

For the rest a very nice show, but this one slide should be amended, as it is an easy target for the warmistas…

If food labels listed ingredients based on the periodic table, it would probably look something like this:

O:
C:
H:

Water is the primary ingredient in many foods (rice and other grains are an exception, as are the foods that contain them as main components), followed by carbon. Hence, carbon would almost always be first or second on the list (in beverages it would probably be third in abundance).

So is this what Gillard’s refering to when calling it “carbon pollution”?

How absurd. My gosh, she must have been schooled without benefit of critical or logical thought.

Overall a good presentation except for slide 7. The claim “greenhouse gases make Planet Earth liveable (+14C current average global temperature, rather than -19C otherwise)” is used by almost all warmists and regrettably by some sceptics, but is 50% wrong. In fact the errors associated with this statement could be seen as foundation for much of AGW alarmism.

When a patch of soil on the surface of Earth is compared to the surface of the Moon, it can be seen that our atmosphere keeps Earth’s surface warmer during hours of darkness and COOLER during the sunlit hours than the surface of the Moon. Saying that “on average” our atmosphere and the gasses within it keep the surface of the earth 33C warmer than it would otherwise be leads to fundamental errors in understanding energy flows in our atmosphere.

The input of energy to Earths surface is primarily through shortwave solar radiation. The exit of energy from the earths surface is primarily through conduction, convection, evaporation and the phase change of water molecules. It is only the exit of energy from the upper troposphere (above most CO2) that is dominated by radiative processes. During sunlit hours the Earths surface is cooler than the surface of the Moon due to our atmosphere regardless of “greenhouse gasses” within it.

What nobody has picked up on PM Gillard’s carbon (dioxide) tax, is the commitment to the UN Green Climate Fund of 10% of any carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. This agreement was signed by Minister Combet ( Climate Change) at Cancun 2010. It has to be ratified at COP17 Durban December 2011, hence the push to get a carbon tax in legislation as soon as possible.
A Youtube video h/t WakeUp2theLies:-
PM Gillard not answering the question on Green Climate Fund – Question Time.
The video includes at the end the pre-election statements by Ms Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan – “I will not have a carbon tax in my term of office” or similar words
The transcript of the “event” in the Parliament is also available in the Australian Federal Parliament Hansard 1/3/2011 , around 2:28pm.

Weather extremes in Australia are quite normal, and have been recorded since Europeans settled there, since long before “carbon” taxes, cap-and-trade and any ETS were a gleam in the eyes of money-hungry politicians. Look up A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events (9.4 MB PDF file), by James A. Marusek and search for “Australia” in that document, e. g.:

To ease the increasing overcrowding in British jails following the loss of the American Colonies in the American War of Independence, the British established a new penal colony, which was the first European settlement in Australia, at Sydney Cove in January 1788. Captain James Cook had charted the east coast of the Australian continent in 1770. On 13 May 1787, the ‘First Fleet’ of eleven ships commenced a historic journey from Portsmouth, England to establish the first European settlement in Australia of 1,030 people including 736 convicts, livestock, grains, seeds, young plants and two years store of supplies.

They arrived on 19 January 1788 in Botany Bay, Australia. During the eight month journey: 104, 108

* The Fleet encountered squally tropical humid weather after passing the Equator into the Southern Hemisphere, resulting in a convict woman being crushed to death and one man being thrown overboard and drowned.

* After leaving Cape Town, South Africa on 13 November, the ships were blown off course in the Roaring Forties [below 40 degrees latitude south].

* Ferocious weather of violent summer storms of very strong gales and heavy seas battered the Fleet in the Southern Ocean between November and December 1787. The winds were so strong that they lost a topsail in December.

* Chilly temperatures as cold as England in December were recorded close to Christmas 1787 [the Southern Hemisphere’s summer].

* The Fleet was forced to slow down New Year’s Day when they encountered the strongest winds of the journey losing one man overboard and injuring the cattle on board.

* In the first week of January 1788, the Fleet sails past the southeast corner of Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), into a violent thunderstorm and observe small patches of snow along the coastline during the height of summer.

* Sailing north up the coast of New South Wales against strong headwinds, many ships of the Fleet and its cargo of precious seedlings, were damaged by sudden squall of wind and very high seas in a severe storm on 10 January 1788. The squall was strong enough to split the mainsail on one ship and another ship lost its main yard carried away in the slings.

* Between 24 and 26 January 1788, a strong wind and huge seas buffeted ships sailing out of Botany Bay to the more suitable location of Port Jackson, where on 26 January 1788, a Union Jack flag, was planted to celebrate the beginning of European settlement in Australia.

This 3% represents the extra amount that humans put in each year at the present time. So it has accumulated to about 40% higher now than it was in 1750. About half of what we put in stays in the air and about half goes into photosynthesis and into the ocean.

“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm

No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.”

I agree there is much that we do not know. However all of the fossil fuels that have been burned since 1750 has caused a lot of CO2 to be emitted and that just does not disappear. It has to show up somewhere. I have no problem accepting that the net effect of humans has been to cause CO2 to go up by 40% since 1750. The real question is whether or not this has caused CAGW. I am convinced the answer to that is NO!

Yes, i completely agree with you, but she cannot admit to that as such, that was my whole point.

The media, or a single peson has to capture her in a straight question, face to face, and ask her.. What evidence made you have such a sudden and abrupt change of heart on your promise, on the implementation of this carbon tax? Show me the very same evidence that persuaded you ….

If she wants the Australian people to believe in this policy she will have to give you a straight answer, otherwise it will show itself for what it is… a complete sham! She can’t just come back with … ‘The concensus off the science says so”

The beauty of your case is she was adamant before the election and then a complete U-Turn after, so she was persuaded by something? So that moment has to be grasped now while it is still hot, otherwise Australia like us in the UK will slowly have to pay more and more into the bottomless pit of ‘Greening’ and saving the Planet from AGW .

James and Derek, the next slide (about the carbon cycle) shows reality: some 7 GtC is emitted by humans but only 4 GtC is removed by oceans and vegetation, that is the difference between natural sources and natural sinks. Thus it is highly misleading to say that human production is only 3% of natural production, because there are only few human sinks (by reforestation), while the natural sinks are higher than the natural production, if counted over a full seasonal cycle. Thus the net natural production is negative (at least over the past 60 years of accurate measurements).
There is little doubt that humans are responsible for almost all of the recent increase of CO2. Temperature only had a small contribution.
Historical CO2 levels from ice cores are quite clear on this: over the past near million years (and probably beyond), the influence of temperature was about 8 ppmv/°C, with CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppmv. Nowadays we are over 390 ppmv…
==================================================================

Ferdinand, I don’t mean to quibble, but, ……..

I don’t believe it can be shown there are any accurate measurements of sinks vs emitters. We don’t know how much the oceans are emitting and sinking. And we don’t know all of the sinks and emitters. It is impossible to state with any certitude how much is removed by oceans and vegetation in a net sum vs how much they are also emitting.(Dying and dead vegetation, ocean out-gassing.) Nor, have we summed the net effect of the fauna of this earth. Further, has anyone accurately shown the emissions of geo-thermal activity? I sincerely doubt it because we are discovering more on a seemingly daily basis underwater. The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative, else, before mankind CO2 would have been zero. If it were zero, then no life. I think it is highly misleading to portray what we believe to have occurred as to be anything more than a guess. And, by my estimation, an unlikely event.

Further, tell me how you believe ice cores have any veracity in them at all? Trapped air? We don’t know old the molecular make-up of that particular piece of air was before it was frozen in time. Further, it is known today, that you can take a CO2 measurement and it varies by 100s of ppm depending upon the location. How is it that the samples we took from the ice cores didn’t show that variation? Mankind again? Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact is, from a couple of ice cores we don’t know jack and to accept them as truth probably isn’t prudent until more can be known and demonstrated.

Nor is ice a static, motionless, object. But then even the land the ice was on, the antarctic, isn’t static and motionless. As far as ice cores from the arctic……. nope, not even likely to be accurate not to time nor place.

No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.”
=================================================================
I have no problem accepting that the net effect of humans has been to cause CO2 to go up by 40% since 1750. The real question is whether or not this has caused CAGW. I am convinced the answer to that is NO!
==========================================================

Sure, it shows up somewhere, and, I don’t state that we are not the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2, I’m stating that we don’t know that. I’m stating we can’t demonstrate it.

Without the assumption that mankind is the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2, can anyone show or demonstrate what the net effect of any part of the rest of variables to this equation? The flora and fauna? The elements? I’ve never once seen a reasonable estimation of any without the assumption that mankind caused the increase.

Adding 3% every year since 1980 suggests that the 2009 CO2 content of the atmosphere should be 796 ppm instead of the measured 382. So there must be a very effective sink somewhere that took an additional 458 ppm out of the atmosphere. That is 90% of the supposed human contribution. Add 100% of the other 97% which is natural (non-anthropogenic) CO2 to get 97%+2.7% which is 99.7%. So they are worried about 0.3% discrepancy? Surely they can’t measure the two components that accurately.

I think I misplaced a decimal in that compound 3% calculation. I redid it using Mauna Loa PPMV from 1960 (317ppm) to 2010 (384ppm), an increase of 67ppm. A 3% increase every year would have produced a 2010 measurement of 1349ppm. So 67(actual)/715(predicted) =.094%. That’s the percent increase since 1960, versus 1349ppm which would be the predicted 4.26% anthropogenic contribution (3% compounded.) 99.9% of the predicted anthropogenic increase has disappeared into the carbon sink (assuming exactly 100% of the natural increase is precisely balanced by the preexisting carbon sink.)

So what unknown is still unknown? Could it be that the actual percentage of anthropogenic contribution is far below 3% or is the carbon sink so effective that only a tiny increase is possible?

“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“I’m stating we can’t demonstrate it. Without the assumption that mankind is the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2, can anyone show or demonstrate what the net effect of any part of the rest of variables to this equation?”

Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, I think it is more than an assumption that we put a lot of CO2 into the air that would otherwise not be there. We can start with the basic equation for the complete combustion of gasoline for a start:
2C8H18 + 25O2 —> 16CO2 + 18H2O. (If you want others for coal or methane, I could provide them too.) The point is, we have a pretty good idea how much hydrocarbons we burn each year and how much extra CO2 we humans are responsible for. But it seems as if only half can be accounted for in the atmosphere.

Well, cancel my calculations. It’s not my night for doing so. The 3% number is the fraction of CO2 emitted annually, not a 3% increase from the previous level. I’ll have go find the gigaton figures and recalculate.

What we do know, is how CO2 introduced into atmosphere in a sealed vessel effects the absoprtion of heat in that vessel.
Period.
We do not know how this transfers to the open atmosphere or how the CO2 effect interacts with the much larger H2O effect.
Very little experimentation or data gathering on these subjecst has been attempted.
Most of what has been done has been done by Dr. Roy Spencer using satelite data.
His work suggests that the IPCC are quite misguided and that CO2 has little impact on the temperature of the atmosphere.

Ancient records show that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was once many thousands of ppm higher than the levels currently experienced.
If water vapor provided a positive feedback then there would have been a runaway greenhouse world many millions of years ago and there would be no life on earth today of any sort.

Its worse than that Wendy, I have “debated” with people here in the “lucky” country who firmly believe the Maunder and Dalton minima were caused by this carbon (CO2) pollution. Gillard recently suggested that the Australian MSM should not print “crap”, seems Gillard could do with a dose of her own advice. Australia is asleep at the wheel.

Wayne Swan, Gillard’s partner in this carbon tax crime, has stated, at a coal mine where miners were “worried” about job losses, that coal output would double with the carbon tax. So its OK to export “carbon pollution”, subsidised by the Aussie taxpayer, but we can’t burn it ourselves? So, just doing some rough calculations, Australia exports ~140mt/y. Each tonne of coal if burnt produces ~3 tonnes of CO2 = ~420mt of CO2 p/a, and doubling this will save the planet. Yeah right!

Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, I think it is more than an assumption that we put a lot of CO2 into the air that would otherwise not be there. ….(lol)….. The point is, we have a pretty good idea how much hydrocarbons we burn each year and how much extra CO2 we humans are responsible for. But it seems as if only half can be accounted for in the atmosphere.
===============================================================

Yes, Werner, we have a fair approximation of how much we emit in our fuel use and the like. However, it in no way equates to the increase of atmospheric CO2. In fact, as you point out, over half is unaccounted for, but that is only accounting for such things as fuel use. If that type of thinking were correct, wouldn’t have the exponential rise in our population alone,(and the exponential rise of farm animal population) even without fuel use, set us out of harmonic CO2 balance….. given our respirations and all……. We do know that all carbon sinks will give it back up at some point in some form or another. We don’t know this isn’t occurring now. Tell me, which scientifically backed estimation of time do you believe is the half life of emitted CO2 in the the atmosphere? A couple of years? Hundreds? Or the safe moderate guess of about 10-20? The fact is, we don’t know. We don’t know the duration, we don’t know how much each sink is sinking, we don’t know how much the other emitters are emitting. We don’t know the capacitance for sinking. We only have one rough estimation of one variable in an equation of nearly infinite variables and infinite weightings of such. But, what we do assume is that they somehow are nearly balanced on a yearly basis and nearly constant, save for mankind’s emissions. And, I don’t believe there is a basis for such assumptions.

The equation 2ppm(the average yearly increase) = x -y + (mankind’s emissions) where x-y = 0 is simplistic and not based in anything other than an assumption. And is shown not to be correct. As you stated, x-y hasn’t equaled zero. x being all natural emissions and y being all sinks, x-y has equaled a negative number if we go by that equation. Again, I’m not stating we are not the cause for the increase, I’m stating we don’t know that we are. Chemical formulas or not. I think we are boxing ourselves in when we operate under assumptions which are clearly suspect.

stevo says:
July 26, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form”
And the relevance of that is?”
_______________________________________________
Carbon Dioxide is the very substance of life. You are a life form (presumably). It is entirely inappropriate to tax the composition and sustenance of every higher life form on earth.

Yes, Werner, we have a fair approximation of how much we emit in our fuel use and the like. However, it in no way equates to the increase of atmospheric CO2.

Oh, yes it does: we have quite accurate calculations of CO2 from fuel use (based on sales) and very accurate measurements of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The latter is the same for 95% of the atmosphere, i.e. all over the oceans and above 1,000 m over land. What happens in the first 1,000 m over land is unimportant, even if that was zero or 1,000 ppmv, that only represents small changes in the bulk of the atmosphere. But have a look at the correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere:
I don’t know of any natural process that would follow human emissions in such an exact way.

The equation 2ppm(the average yearly increase) = x -y + (mankind’s emissions) where x-y = 0 is simplistic and not based in anything other than an assumption. And is shown not to be correct.

Even if it is simplistic (the best theories are the simplest…), it is quite accurate. It is the difference between rather accurate CO2 emissions and very accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is completely unimportant to know any individual flow or its variations over the years, because we know the endresult:
All it says is that, at least in the past 60 years, nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source. No matter how much volcanoes were emitting (which is less than 1% of fossil fuel use), how much animals were emitting (which doesn’t count, as what we and they emit was captured a few months before by plants)… Shareholders don’t need to know all ins and outs of a bussiness (they better should), but they are very interested in the gain (or loss) at the end of the year…

The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative
It never was, but before mankind, there was a dynamic equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels over the past near million years (geological times are not comparable, these had different ocean compositions and different geological formations). The more you are over that equilibrium, the more is captured by the sinks (oceans as well as plants).
While the timing of gas composition vs. ice age is quite difficult to establish, there is little doubt that the ice cores represent the average CO2 level of the past 800,000 years, be it more smoothed for the longest periods back in time. The objections of Jaworowski (1992) were already refuted in 1996 by Etheridge e.a.:http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

Further, all these points were discussed at WUWT some time ago, simply search my name here…

And finally, I completely agree with Werner Brozek, that we should focus on the lack of effect of the 30+% CO2 increase since pre-industrial times, as the “we may not be responsible for the increase” is a lost argument.

A 3% increase every year would have produced a 2010 measurement of 1349ppm.

That is the exact reason why the 3% is misleading. The 3% is the current percentage if you compare the emissions with the natural emissions. But the latter is not one-way, but only going back and forth between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs (oceans and the biosphere) over the seasons. That is circulation, not addition. There is no net addition by nature, only a net sink over a year. That sink is about halve the emissions, thus the net result is an increase in the atmosphere of about halve the emissions. That is already so for at least the past 60 years of accurate measurements and probably longer (based on ice cores).

Thus it doesn’t matter how much % of the circulation the emissions are, even if what nature emits and absorbs is 10 times smaller or 100 times larger. Only the difference at the end of the seasonal cycle counts. And that is 4 +/- 2 GtC/year, while the emissions are at 8 GtC/year. The variability in sink capacity is directly related to temperature variations, but is relatively small, probably because oceans and vegetation react opposite to temperature.

The point is, we have a pretty good idea how much hydrocarbons we burn each year and how much extra CO2 we humans are responsible for.

Yes, but that is not the issue of the debate. What we don’t know is what absolute amount of CO2 natural processes emit or absorb, therefore we don’t know what percentage of the overall CO2 flux the human contribution actually is, even though we roughly know its absolute mass.

Another thing we don’t know is how flexible natural processes are in absorbing any additional CO2. For example it could well be that photosynthetic plants absorb most of the added human CO2 (and thus thrive), and that something else, i.e. some natural process, is adding even more CO2 than the plants can currently cope with, which would explain the measured CO2 increase.

For example it is imagineable that human produced CO2 is statistical noise compared to any natural process, and that the measured CO2 increase is caused by the oceans outgassing massive amounts of CO2, due to them being slightly warmed by any number of natural causes.

Malcolm Green there is one Green in the House of Representatives. She is getting her lower house support from the Independents and they are not listening at all, yet losing support in their own electorate. Last time the senate didn’t not vote for the ETS. Now with a few more inmates
since August they do have a few more. Whether this legislation is passed by the lower house is questionable as I am sure many of the present ALP there are being told by their electorates
that the carbon tax legislation is a no goer. Percentages are not fully explained, 4% of Greenhouse gases is CO2 and less than 1% can be attributed to humans. The rest is natural
occurring. The components of the air we breathe is that CO2 is about 1 percent. Humans
enhance greenhouse gases period. But not dangerously as the warmist’s suggest.

we don’t know what percentage of the overall CO2 flux the human contribution actually is, even though we roughly know its absolute mass.

Take a fountain where a huge pump is pumping water around from the bassin below. No matter if the pump delivers 100, 1,000 or 10,000 liter/hour, nothing happens with the level in the bassin (except for some evaporation). Add a hose which delivers a flow of 1 liter water per hour, and the bassin will give an overflow after some time, no matter if the additional flow is 1% or 0.1% or 0.01% of the main flux.

Thus the height of the natural flux is not important at all, only the difference between influx and outflux is important, and that is quite exactly known: nowadays 4 +/- 2 GtC (about 2 +/- 1 ppmv) net sink per year. See:
The sink rate is the difference between what is emitted by humans and what is measured as increase in the atmosphere. Even if one of the underlying inflows increased a 10-fold (e.g. the Pinatubo eruption), something else may – or may not – compensate for that, but anyway the net result over one year (a full seasonal cycle) is known. E.g. in the case of the Pinatubo, the cooling of the oceans, due to the sunlight blocking by its volcanic dust, more than compensated for the extra CO2 from the eruption: that year (1992), the CO2 increase was minimal.

Yes, Werner, we have a fair approximation of how much we emit in our fuel use and the like. However, it in no way equates to the increase of atmospheric CO2.
=================================================================

Oh, yes it does: we have quite accurate calculations of CO2 from fuel use (based ……….
===================================================================

Ferdinand, you missed my point and, you missed the obvious. You are making assumption to world history based, mostly upon observations of the last 60 years, when it doesn’t make sense to assume yearly equilibrium until our lifetime. And, again, I’m not stating that we aren’t responsible, I’m stating it cannot be demonstrated that we are. Further, I find it interesting that you would mention the ice core evidence, but ignore the evidence of when earth’s CO2 was much higher.

“The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative…”
“It never was, but before mankind, there was a dynamic equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels over the past near million years (geological times are not comparable, these had different ocean compositions and different geological formations).”

What mechanism made the CO2 higher? What mechanism took it out? What happened to that mechanism? Did it die? Claiming we must dismiss earlier history because things were different back then and only address the things which are making the earth different today, while out of hand dismissing many other explanations for changes today, seems a bit unreasonable.

While I agree that the earth is an equilibrium seeking machine, I find it strange that the only equilibrium it seems to have ever achieved, was a trace gas level in the earth’s atmosphere. And that equilibrium was only lost in the last 60 years after finally and only achieving relative equilibrium during the last million years or so. Ferdinand, does that make any sense to you?

“Further, all these points were discussed at WUWT some time ago, simply search my name here…” lol, yes, Ferdinand, I remember.

Ferdinand, at the end of the day, I find myself believing most of what you write, but believing and knowing are two very different things. Over the last 20 years or so, what I’ve come to know, is that we should challenge it all, accept nothing, make people show their work, and understand that most assumptions about our climate are wrong.

Jeff T thank you for that video clip. I watched live the same question given by Julie Bishop to the
treasurer Wayne Swan. It seems they don’t want to admit that at Cancun in Mexico last December Australia committed $600 million a year! To the UN Green Climate change fund, to be distributed by the UN to countries who are suffering climate change disasters caused by carbon emissions from developed countries.

They won’t answer the question directly or truthfully. However recently the US Congress passed a bill to cease any contributions to this fund. They have wised up. Now the Greens are suggesting that the media in Australia should be banned from printing any reports from anti-climate change science that contradicts their science. Much like Chris Hulne in UK suggested that fighting climate
change deniers was like fighting Hitler! And in the Australian Press that deniers should be branded and another we should be gassed. When will this madness end? What I object to
is they asked ‘Do you believe in climate change? Yes or No. Of course we believe in climate change but not AGW!

You’re 70% water. Doesn’t mean you can’t drown.
So then, you’d be in agreement with, and would sign the following petition right?

“Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.

Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain
contributes to the “greenhouse effect.”
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the Midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its “importance to the economic health of this nation.” In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

I, for one, sincerely hope that the carbon tax goes through in Australia. No, I’m not a koolaide drinking agw socialist, hear me out. If Australia succeeds in implementing this tax, the logical result is a massive hit to their economy. It will provide a perfectly clear example to the rest of the world that will illustrate just how idiotic and destructive the whole agw scam can be to their economies should they let their idiotic lefty political parties get into office and actually try to follow up on that crap. I say better Australia than where I live, in Canada. And I thank god that the Conservatives got into office again.

Further, I find it interesting that you would mention the ice core evidence, but ignore the evidence of when earth’s CO2 was much higher.

The ice core evidence is 800,000 years long, that is a small blip in geological history. During that period, CO2 levels followed temperature variations with some lag (600 to several thousands of years), but with a surprisingly linear ratio. During the Cretaceous, 65 to 145 millions of years ago, CO2 levels were very much higher, but the geological place of the continents was quite different, the deep oceans were much warmer, no ice at the poles and very little temperature difference between the equator and poles. Calcifering algues were thriving enormous and are responsible for the chalk deposits in many countries. These also are responsible for most of the drop in CO2 over the past tens of millions of years, with little possibility of fast return of high CO2 levels…

That makes that over geological era’s there is little correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, but if you look at a smaller time frame where there is little geological change, like in the past near million years, there is a quite good correlation, where CO2 follows temperature variations. In the past 160+ years, CO2 levels don’t follow the ratio with temperature anymore, thus by far exceeding the temperature dictated equilibrium.

I have no problem accepting that humans are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere: the emissions as cause fit every series of observations, while every alternative explanation is in contradiction with one or more observations.

But let us go back to the original complaint: do you agree that the 3% human contribution slide is at least irrelevant (because how much is circulating through the atmosphere doesn’t matter at all) and in fact misleading, as the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere?

Nothing changed Julia Gillards mind about a carbon tax. That was her plan all along. If she had announced the tax before the election she would not have been elected. By sucking in the electorate, who thought it would now be safe to vote for Labor, she with the help of the greens could do anything they liked after the election. As I said that was her plan and It highlights the level of respect she has for the Australian people. Her plan just before the next election will be to try a buy off voters with baubles and trinkets in the form of tax cuts. I hope the Australian public do not fall for this.

“…..do you agree that the 3% human contribution slide is at least irrelevant (because how much is circulating through the atmosphere doesn’t matter at all) and in fact misleading, as the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere?

I agree that it could be irrelevant. But, the very fact that you state the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere tells me we don’t know what we don’t know. And, we’re making assumptions that are baseless. What you and others are essentially stating, is that a CO2 sink mechanism lay dormant for about a million years not engaging, but only engaging in the last 60 years to compensate for man’s emissions. Ferdinand, I agree with the posit and believe there will be more to engage if CO2 continues to propagate. And, that all of this talk about man’s being responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is what is irrelevant. But, again, we don’t know the equation, much less the variables.

BTW, now that most of the readers have moved on, I thought I’d point out an error in your reasoning………….. You had stated,………….. “What happens in the first 1,000 m over land is unimportant, even if that was zero or 1,000 ppmv, that only represents small changes in the bulk of the atmosphere……………”

If that statement is true, then I think it appropriate to state the exhaust from my respirations are typically at a higher elevation than the exhaust of my pickup truck. Perhaps, this is your missing 50% of human emissions? Perhaps SUVs and burning of gasoline are indeed irrelevant to atmospheric CO2? :-)

“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Tell me, which scientifically backed estimation of time do you believe is the half life of emitted CO2 in the the atmosphere? A couple of years? Hundreds? Or the safe moderate guess of about 10-20?”
I believe 38 years. See: The atmosphere has a CO2 decay function with a half-life time of about 38 years as will be shown in the following.http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

“James Sexton says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:13 am
What mechanism made the CO2 higher? What mechanism took it out? What happened to that mechanism? Did it die?”

It was a combination of Milankovitch cycles and the fact that oceans hold less CO2 in hot water than in cold water. As well, there is an equilibrium between CO2 in the air and CO2 dissolved in the water. If the temperature of Earth were to suddenly heat up, the oceans would expel a lot of CO2. But at the present time, the oceans are not changing much in temperature, however we humans are emitting a lot of CO2 into the air. According to Le Chatelier’s principle, the system will adjust to this stress by causing the oceans to absorb some of the extra CO2. This mechanism is still alive and well.

P.S. Thank you very much Ferdinand Engelbeen for your excellent responses! I will retire next month as a high school physics and chemistry teacher so I will be able to respond to comments sooner.

Werner Brozek says:
July 27, 2011 at 5:35 pm….”If the temperature of Earth were to suddenly heat up, the oceans would expel a lot of CO2. But at the present time, the oceans are not changing much in temperature,…….”

No, not presently…. but they were. And quite significantly in some areas.

I’m not sure I could have stated it better.

BTW, love your explanation for the past, but, haven’t Milankovitch cycles persisted? The explanation you gave quotes cycles and principles that still apply today, and nothing has changed about that. Yet, our climate is significantly different. Chatelier’s principle and a persistent cycle are not harbingers of change, but causation for the status quo. I think the problem is most people reckon the earth was in equilibrium about 100 years or so ago. Or, for you and Ferdinand, a million up towards 1000 years or so, when there’s no evidence that either is true. And, the reasoning is the same. Some believe mankind is an aberration of nature and causes nature to change. I believe mankind is as much part of nature as anything else and if nature changes through us, it is because it was necessary for nature to change and it would have found a way to accomplish it, regardless of our existence. It changed without us, it changes with us, and it will continue to change, with or without us.

Werner, its been a pleasure, I look forward to having more discussions with you and Ferdinand. You guys both gave well reasoned, articulate responses……. wrong, in some cases, but well reasoned.

O/T But everyone tune into Joanne Nova’s site. There is a national convoy organised, yes, national coming from as far as Darwin (up north) and from as far away as Perth (west) to converge on Canberra. With a strong anti carbon tax message and no confidence in the government. With this type of mass protest it is hard to see if the legislation will pass.
Sorry fellow Canuke, we don’t want it as it is useless and destructive for our economy and way of life. The convoy made up of truckies and anyone with a motor vehicle, sounds like Ghandi’s march to the sea to make salt, eh, in protest to the British Raj tax on salt. It will be converging and stopping at various points on their way to Canberra, one will be on the 14th August in Tamworth (Tony Windsor’s seat) that is also holding public rallys and forums on this day.
I heard of this when I attended Robert Carters forum on the 21st July in Tamworth. I just hope it doesn’t get violent or the stupid government bring in the traffic cops. Especially as Christine Milne wants to stop the media from publishing anti-carbon tax articles and real climate change science that contradicts their stupid and political One world government agenda. Good talk by the Czech
president at the National Press club, Canberra on the 25th July. Available on http:/samuelgordonstewart.com/2011/07/president-klaus-address-to-the-national-press-club Probably a bit too intellectual for a lot of AGW warmists. But Cardinal Pell, Prof Robert Carter, Lord Christopher Monckton were present and he praised the last two’s books. Well worth an hour to watch. He was prohibited from entering parliament house by the way, but ex PM Tony Blair was admitted no problems at all. I’ve never seen anything as big as this in Australia, not
Nation wide at least that is how strong Australian’s feel about this present government’s agendas.

But, the very fact that you state the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere tells me we don’t know what we don’t know.

If the calculated emissions are about twice what we measure accurately in the atmosphere, what do you need more to know? As long as no CO2 escapes to space, the difference must be absorbed somewhere by nature. Where it is absorbed is interesting (and roughly known), but completely irrelevant for the increase in the atmosphere. It is quite simple: if nature as a whole was a larger source than sink for CO2, the increase in the atmosphere would be larger than the emissions, not smaller…

What you and others are essentially stating, is that a CO2 sink mechanism lay dormant for about a million years not engaging, but only engaging in the last 60 years to compensate for man’s emissions.

No, what we state is that nature over the last near million years shows a dynamic equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels. That means that any disturbance of that equilibrium will give a reaction of the components that will counteract the disturbance. That is Le Châtelier Principle (as Werner Brozek already said), see:http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/lechatelier.html
No matter if the disturbance is positive or negative: a sudden outbreak of many volcanic vents, human emissions or excessive rock weathering (which absorbs CO2) or increased plant growth.
In the case of human emissions: that gives a small increase in CO2 levels, but an increase in CO2 levels will increase the uptake by plants and oceans. That will reduce the atmospheric increase caused by CO2 from the emissions, but doesn’t eliminate the total emission.

What happens in the first 1,000 m over land is unimportant

Sorry, I was not clear in my response: the first 1,000 m over land are not relevant for measuring global CO2 levels, as a halving or tripling of CO2 there only represents a few ppmv in the bulk of the atmosphere. One can measure CO2 levels there which change hundreds of ppmv within a few hours, see e.g. a few days in the modern life of CO2 measurements in Giessen (Germany):
That makes that historical measurements taken over land have little meaning for the rest of the globe.
But a continous addition or absorbing of CO2, as happens mostly over land by humans and vegetation, of course will find its way to the bulk of the atmosphere, as can be seen in the seasonal cycle (mainly over the NH) and the continuous increase…

“suyts says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:01 pm
…and if nature changes through us, it is because it was necessary for nature to change”

I do not completely agree here. We have caused pollution and things like Chernobyl happened that would not have happened otherwise.

“You guys both gave well reasoned, articulate responses……. wrong, in some cases, but well reasoned.”

I would suggest that “wrong” is not the correct word. Just because you did not agree with everything does not mean we were wrong.

“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm
As long as no CO2 escapes to space, ”

As you no doubt know, we can be certain that is not happening. With the Boltzmann Distribution Curve and Earth’s gravity and temperatures at the outer atmosphere, only hydrogen and helium can reach the escape velocity and since kinetic energy is 1/2mv2, the lighter elements have the higher potential speeds.

“What happens in the first 1,000 m over land is unimportant”
I am glad you clarified that! It was the only thing you said that perplexed me. I guess it is sort of like taking the air temperature with jet exhaust fumes blowing against the thermometer.

Australians once could all rejoice
When we were young and free;
We worked darn hard in our backyards
And fished the mighty seas.
Then came a government outrage
That wanted to be noted,
For taxing people, who dared breathe
Polluting Earth with Carbon.
So sadly now we all must sing
Goodbye Australia Fair!http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/australia-once-was-fair/